Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are still working on plans for the national roll-out of Pathways to Work. They will be announced in due course.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness the breakdown of figures that she requires. I am not sure that when we come to announce the full plans for the roll-out we will be able to break them down to that extent. I very much agree with the gist of the noble Baroness's question. The latest figure that I have is that, for 2005, 39 per cent of incapacity benefit claimants were classified in terms of mental and behavioural disorders. Clearly, there has been considerable growth in the number of people claiming IB in that category.
	The experience from the Pathways to Work pilots so far is encouraging. There is no question that people with mental health issues have been supported back into work. Pathways to Work staff are fully aware of mental health issues and the encouragement that they can give. If we can work on the encouraging outcome of the current Pathways, there is a lot that we can do for people with mental health issues.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we on these Benches fully support the national roll-out of Pathways to Work, but can he be sure that the £350 million of resources for it is sufficient, particularly given the report of the Institute for Public Policy Research which suggested that as much as £500 million would be needed to roll out the programme properly?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, up to financial year 2005–06, we spent about £150 million. Without the extension of the roll-out, we expect to spend another £484 million. On top of that is the £360 million that we announced in the Green Paper. We expect that money to produce what we said it would produce.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Pathways to Work has been one of the great success stories of this Government? It has a crucial role to play in welfare reform, but the only disappointing aspect of it has been the slowness of the roll-out. The quicker that we can get on with the national roll-out, the better that Pathways to Work can function alongside the Government's welfare reform programme.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his encouraging remarks about the progress of the Pathways to Work pilots. I accept his point that we need to speed on with this, but it is equally important that we get it right. We have learnt lessons as we have moved along. We will begin seven more pilots in April 2006 and a further three in October 2006. As I said in my main Answer, we will announce further roll-outs in due course.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I think that if jurisdiction is with the Commission on this, individual member states have a right to make representations about issues affecting their national interest. Whether or not the Commission takes those on board is a matter for the Commission, but member states have a right to make representations.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we shall hear a Statement this afternoon. It will come sometime after 4.30 pm. My noble friend Lady Amos will repeat a Statement on Iraq.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I believe it is for me to speak next on this matter, as it was my amendment which the Government have now overturned in the House of Commons. We have considered the situation, and are content with the Government's acceptance of the amendment moved by my honourable friend, Mr David Health, in the other place. That disposes of any controversy in this matter.
	I should like the Minister to explain one point which has somewhat confused me. New subsection (5) says:
	"The provision which may be made under sub-paragraph (4)(c) includes provision prescribing circumstances in which the person or body reviewing a decision may refer a question to the High Court for its decision".
	So far as I can see, that paragraph relates to transitional provision. I think that means new subsection (4)(ba). If I am right, this is the sort of technical defect that could be corrected without having to bring the matter back to your Lordships' House. Will the Minister confirm that? I believe that new subsection (4)(ba) refers to the provision for reviewing a decision, rather than to the transitional provision.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the breathless way in which the noble Viscount asked his question. The clause is about a single licence, not many licences, but I will certainly seek to meet the points that he accurately made.
	The Government's clear and firm presumption is that a single licence will be issued to run the National Lottery, awarded by competition. I cannot emphasise too strongly that that is the Government's clear policy, which was reached after considerable discussion in the wake of the previous competition. We believe that the National Lottery Commission is preparing very competently for the award of the third licence sometime next year. We are optimistic that there will be a good competition and a successful outcome.
	Even though that is what we want to happen, we cannot, of course, guarantee it. We have therefore decided that, in the extreme and unwelcome circumstance of an unsuccessful competition—and mindful of concerns expressed by the Public Accounts Committee, which drew attention to this issue on the second licence competition—we need a fallback position, which is what Clause 6 provides. It gives the Secretary of State the reserve power to introduce a new licensing structure, set out in Schedule 1, whereby more than one licence can be issued to promote lotteries forming part of the National Lottery. We do not say that this is the best outcome—after all, it is a fallback positions—but we believe it offers the greatest alternatives scope for the combination of innovation and efficiency that the lottery requires if it is to remain successful.
	If the Secretary of State needs to take action, she will make an order under Clause 6 for Schedule 1 to take effect, but only after consulting the National Lottery Commission. That statutory instrument may bring in Schedule 1, in whole or in part, and would be subject, of course, to the negative assent procedure in both Houses.
	Schedule 1 sets out how a system of more than one licence may work and the consequent changes to existing legislation—in the main to the National Lottery Act 1993. Paragraph 4 of the schedule replaces Sections 5 and 6 of the Act with a new structure for the licensing and operating of games. Specifically, it covers matters such as the procedure for granting applications and how that relates to the competition. The key change relating to this fall-back option is in the proposed new Section 5.
	I could go through the total justification for the clause, which we debated on Second Reading, but I think I have established its main purpose in response to the noble Viscount's abbreviated comments on it. I hope he is satisfied that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Viscount Astor: The amendment relates to the Government's powers in regard to the Big Lottery Fund. We are concerned about the word "prescription", which seems to add an extremely more powerful set of words than has ever before been connected with the distributing bodies. We think that the lottery distributors should be guaranteed a level of independence free from interference from the Government.
	One of the difficulties with the lottery is that we all have views about what organisations the various distributing bodies should or should not give to. One of the advantages of handing that responsibility to the distributing bodies is that we can all complain when they give to organisations that we do not like and we can all applaud when they do things that we do like. That is its nature and it is a good process. We are all bound to have a different view. However, I am concerned that now that we have the Big Lottery Fund, which will receive 50 per cent of the funding coming out of the National Lottery, its remit is getting very close to core government spending. After all, the Big Lottery Fund will have a remit for health and education, and in effect there will be increased government control over it.
	The Minister's argument on Second Reading, and the argument that now faces us, is that this is a light-touch Government and that the power is a reserve one which we do not need to use. If that is the case, it seems to me that we should go back to the words that have served us well in the nearly 10 years that the distributing bodies have been in place—that they must "take account" of the Secretary of State. That seems much better, because it gives them that independence. I do not understand why the Government need the word "prescribed", which seems unnecessary and heavy-handed and raises all kinds of issues that will affect our debates as we progress through the Bill, for example on things such as additionality.
	If we are to be persuaded later on about things such as additionality, we will have to have a glimmer of understanding of why the Government want this power of prescription. As soon as they put it there, we think, "This is a way, through the back door, of breaking the concept of additionality". In practice, although the Government pay lip service to that concept, it is increasingly being broken, as we heard on Second Reading from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and from the other place. We would like to see less of that, not more. I therefore think that Amendment No. 2, by deleting the word "prescribed", would be a welcome addition to the Bill. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor: The Minister said he hoped that he had convinced me. He convinced me of one thing: how much I dislike the concept of the Big Lottery Fund. That is an argument I will reserve until later in the Bill, because I have not given up my campaign to restore the lottery's original four bodies. We will come on to that.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, these are additional powers. There is no doubt about that. When it comes to heritage, sport and the arts, they only have to take account of the fact that the Big Lottery Fund will be prescribed. That is a major difference, and the Minister has not been able to answer on that. His argument is that sport and the arts are more narrowly focused, and so on, but that argument does not particularly hold water. Sporting bodies have to make huge decisions about how they fund different sports throughout the country, and they seem to do so very well. As the noble Lord says, the Government want additional powers because the amount of money coming in will rise from 33.3 to 50 per cent.
	The Minister did not say what the Government's intentions are on this matter, and that is our great difficulty. He says the Bill will cover health, the environment, education and charities, but how is it that the Government have the power to come along to the Big Lottery Fund and say, "We would like you to give this much to charities, this much to health and this much to education"? He said that these would be broad-brush powers. Then he said, "Wait a minute—we're also going to have powers concerning devolved expenditure and small grants", and suddenly went into all the detail about it. Equally, he said the Government would come forward to the House with secondary legislation, but, as we all know, you cannot amend secondary legislation. We can have a debate about it, and we can either chuck it out—in which case the Government will say, "The House of Lords shouldn't be throwing out secondary legislation"—or accept it. We will not have a proper debate. If we are going to move forward to some form of understating, the Minister has got to be a bit clearer.
	Clause 7(3C) states:
	"Before making an order . . . the Secretary of State shall consult—
	(a) the Big Lottery Fund,
	(b) the National Assembly for Wales,
	(c) the Scottish Ministers,
	(d) the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and
	(e) such other persons (if any) as he thinks appropriate".
	The Secretary of State will ask Scottish Ministers, "How much do you want from the Big Lottery Fund?" and they will reply, "As much as possible, please". Everybody will say that. But how will the Secretary of State decide who gets what? What principles will guide his decision-making? I am not asking the Minister to say exactly what anyone will get, not even the exact percentages, but what principles will guide the Government when they decide what to allocate to health, education and the environment? Will they divide the relevant money equally or will they say that one is more important than the other? We do not know and that causes us difficulties.
	These new additional powers allow the Government—they might say that they will not use them—to prescribe expenditure for a certain purpose and a certain region and there is nothing anyone can do about it. One only has to look at Clause 7, which lists the relevant areas and whether the expenditure is charitable or connected with health or education. We need more information on the Government's intentions; otherwise, we shall return to the matter again and again because it raises so many issues.
	It would be helpful if the Minister could add to his reply. However, if he feels constrained in that regard, perhaps he will write to us or we will return to the matter on Report.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am only too happy to enlighten the movers of amendments in Committee if it is within my power to do so. However, I am not sure that on this occasion it is; hence my hesitancy.
	I spelt out that we were talking about very broad categories indeed. We have already had illustration that under the existing legislation the specific areas are dealt with using a light touch. I indicated that those areas were well defined in good causes. I indicated how the legislation worked. With the creation of so large a body—the Big Lottery Fund, with 50 per cent of the expenditure—it seems sensible to the Government and, I believe, to people whom we have consulted, that that expenditure should have some broad parameters. We are not prescribing details of schemes in regions. The moneys that will be allocated to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland will follow a broad-based formula. The one that we are operating at present constitutes an elaborate calculation. If anybody thinks that the Big Lottery Fund would dare to allocate money to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland unfairly and without following clear criteria in that regard, they are placing little emphasis on the power of the devolved institutions and the people they represent. The Big Lottery Fund distributors follow a formula, based on census data and various deprivation factors, which determines detailed percentages of funds being allocated to the three countries.
	On the broad issues of policy, I could not have given broader prescriptions. I indicated that community learning, community safety and cohesion, and physical and mental well-being would be promoted. If it is contended that that is a very narrow prescription that the Government are seeking to develop, I emphasise again—I have made this clear—that we will bring these powers before both Houses in an order so that the concepts can be fully examined. I hear what the noble Viscount says about the amendment but he is not talking about narrow amendments to the potential descriptive themes, as I understand it. He is saying, "You should not have these prescriptive themes in there at all". I say that we need them because this is such a substantial part of the lottery and that we are open and transparent about how we will go about it. I cannot for the life of me understand—even if one accepted that the noble Viscount had a case on prescriptive powers with regard to these themes—how on earth we could take away prescriptive powers with regard to allocation to the devolved administrations. It must be recognised that it is necessary, as this clause envisages, to make prescription in that area.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Viscount has described what is going on now—and we intend to change that. So I hope that he will oppose the amendments, because our broader categories will give the Big Lottery Fund greater discretion on expenditure. We are not talking about micro-management, but orders that will come before both Houses of Parliament every three years or so at the most. They will be about broad areas of funding and broad objectives.
	We have indicated the themes. We are merely saying that the argument that appears to come from the Opposition Benches is extraordinary. The new Big Lottery Fund comprises 50 per cent of expenditure on good causes. We know that the other 50 per cent will go down narrow, well-defined, prescriptive channels, with clearly defined and limited recipients. To say that there should be a free-for all in the other area, and that this House, the other place or anyone else should have no view about such substantial expenditure, and that it should not broadly be prescribed, seems a very odd argument. It is an argument for imbalance and is contrary to what goes on at present, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, elicited from me. It does not stand up to examination. That is why I hope that the noble Viscount will be convinced that I have a good argument.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We are not going to prescribe amounts of expenditure. That would be prescription with a vengeance. The Big Lottery Fund will make the decisions on expenditure, but we will identify broad areas in which it will be appropriate for the fund to encourage schemes to come forward, which it will then support.
	I described the position of the devolved administrations. Solely within that context I indicated that there would need to be a formula of some precision. The one that I described was that used at the present time by the Big Lottery Fund. There is no reason why that formula should necessarily be continued—the fund may decide on others—but it must stand up to the examination of what is reasonable. As I have indicated, the assemblies to which the devolved administrations are responsible would make it clear if they were treated unfairly. It is true that in that area we have figures of some precision. The Big Lottery Fund last year allocated 77.5 per cent to England, 11.5 per cent to Scotland, 6.5 per cent to Wales and 4.5 per cent to Northern Ireland. It was not Ministers but the Big Lottery Fund which made the allocation against explicit criteria on which it could be challenged. I have not the slightest doubt that if that formula is unpopular or unfair, we will speedily know about it from the devolved administrations and their assemblies. With regard to the other issues, I was indicating that, again, it would be for the Big Lottery Fund to divide up the resources. I was indicating broad areas for expenditure, and those broad themes will be covered by an order to go before both Houses.
	I have nothing further to add other than it seems entirely sensible that there should be some way in which the will of the public regarding broad areas of expenditure is identified through the Big Lottery Fund, given the vast amount of resources that it will have at its disposal and given that it will be working in parallel with other good cause allocations in which the prescription is far more obviously defined.

Baroness Pitkeathley: I must take issue with the noble Viscount about the great majority of the New Opportunities Fund going to local authorities. The money from the New Opportunity Fund funded a huge range of projects which gave great satisfaction to those receiving them. Even in the New Opportunities Fund days, at least 40 per cent of its money always went to the voluntary and community sector. As the cash available to the New Opportunities Fund was greater than that available to the Community Fund, in cash terms the New Opportunities Fund contributed at least as much, if not more, to the voluntary and community sector as the old Community Fund. It seems to me that we should accept the Big Lottery Fund's commitment to allocate 60 per cent to 70 per cent of its funding to the voluntary and community sector. I understand that whatever we call it—the third sector, the voluntary sector or the charitable sector—the sector is largely satisfied with both that approach and the way in which that money is proposed. The consultation has been very extensive indeed.
	I should perhaps remind your Lordships that even where money appears to go to local authorities, to the health service or whatever, it is very often after consultation and in co-operation as a joint project with the voluntary sector. So I suspect that we will see even more of the money going to the voluntary and community sector than the 60 per cent or 70 per cent promised by the Big Lottery Fund.

Lord Clement-Jones: I am grateful to the Minister, as I did feel that I had to push him uphill on this. He is always optimistic in these debates, and he is somewhat optimistic now to think that I would simply accept his assurance. Nevertheless, it is extremely welcome.
	The exchange with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was very useful, as were the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. The Minister's clarification of what constitutes the voluntary and community sector—or third sector—was also useful, as was his clarification of percentage. In a sense, we are moving on from 40 per cent plus 16 2, which is why it is so important to the voluntary and community sector to have some assurance that the way in which the Big Lottery Fund distributes money will be enshrined in law for the future. In many ways, that is why we on these Benches will not attempt to upset the Big Lottery Fund applecart. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, there was a great deal of consultation, and I have absolutely no doubt that there will be some very contented voluntary and community sector bodies if all the assurances that the Big Lottery Fund and the Government have given are met. We on these Benches try to reflect what some of the people who brief us and who have an interest in these matters are seeking to do. Otherwise, one would be going back to examining with much greater care precisely why we need this gargantuan body to take 50 per cent of National Lottery funds. So this assurance is of huge importance. That is why we would like it to be in the Bill.
	The Minister had a bit of fun saying that here we were, trying to be over-prescriptive, but it is all a question of how detailed that prescription is. Our objection to the Government's amendment of Section 22 of the 1993 Act was the inclusion of the power to make detailed prescriptions. Nothing in this 60 per cent amendment equates to that. It is very broad, and it is entirely in line with the undertaking that the Big Lottery Fund has given. Indeed, now it is entirely in line with the ministerial assurance. I hope that, at the next stage of the Bill, we will push the Minister a little further along the track. Let us wait and see. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Astor: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says that he does not want to upset the apple cart of the Big Lottery Fund. When one sees certain apple carts, one cannot resist making the attempt. I am certainly not going to give up my attempts to upset the Big Lottery Fund. However, I am afraid that my proposed new clause in a sense puts the cart before the horse because it is predicated on my effort to persuade your Lordships to put the lottery back to its original four good causes. Noble Lords may recall that at first there were five good causes because of the inclusion of the Millennium Fund, meaning that each cause received 20 per cent. If my amendment were agreed to, the four causes would each receive 25 per cent, meaning a substantial increase in funding for the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I hope noble Lords will keep that in mind.
	There is an issue about national collections in this country. My noble friend Lord Brooke will remember from his days in the Department of National Heritage that Ministers were always concerned about losing national collections because although there are provisions such as acceptance in lieu, the amount is often ring-fenced by the Treasury. It only takes a death or something similar for a substantial collection to arrive on the Treasury's doorstep all in one year and to cause a major problem. The bodies involved, such as the British Museum and the National Gallery, have put out a call for an acquisitions fund to form part of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It must be remembered that my proposal would not take money away from the various activities of the fund because, in effect, it is based on the assumption that it will enjoy an increased percentage.
	My amendment, which is probing in nature, asks the Government whether they have considered this issue. What is their response to the call of some of our leading institutions that there should be a fund of this kind? The figures show that the amount of money being spent on, say, preventing art objects going abroad is very small compared with the sums handed out by the Heritage Lottery Fund. I do not criticise that because it is right that it should make its own decisions. I merely recite it as a statement of fact that for its own reasons, it has felt unable to support such a fund. But what has happened are cases such as that of the recent application for the Canaletto scenes of London paintings to go abroad. Many feel that they should not go.
	Will the Government consider the creation of a national acquisitions fund? I do not know whether this is the right place in the Bill for such a proposal, so this amendment simply tries to ascertain the Government's thoughts on the issue. It is important and the Bill gives us an opportunity to consider it. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support the probing amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Astor. I shall make one historical observation about the creation of the lottery and the resources of the National Heritage Memorial Fund as a distributor for the heritage. There were those who felt that, particularly given the amount of money going to the memorial fund, it was to an extent a retrograde step. They were disappointed that the Heritage Lottery Fund would have to make decisions not only about general distribution, but also how its own resources within the National Heritage Memorial Fund should be allocated—particularly because under the old dispensation, before responsibility for the built environment passed from the Department of the Environment to the then Department of National Heritage and now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, there was always the odd £1 million or even the odd £10 million lying around in the Department of the Environment's coffers as 31 March or 4 April approached. As a result, there was the potential for a bonus for the heritage from those coffers because it was a cause no one could disagree with. The department therefore became a sump for these remaindered extras.
	In the aftermath of 1992–93, after the lottery Bill was passed, there was concern that the National Heritage Memorial Fund's budgetary allocation actually fell. I am conscious that that occurred in the early stages under a Conservative administration. I can see the Treasury's argument that it had this enormous amount of money to distribute qua the lottery because it was a body that had a locus in all four parts of the kingdom. Yet the money which was very specifically its own was going down and was pruned because, as I say, it had access itself to the new lottery money for distribution . The National Heritage Memorial Fund was a particular resource for the crises that periodically occur in national acquisitions. There has been continuing controversy in the years since about how much money the National Heritage Memorial Fund qua itself has received from the public coffers. I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I recognise that this is a probing amendment and I congratulate the noble Viscount on identifying an area that needs to be debated. As he will expect, I shall ask him to withdraw the amendment, but I assure him that we are concerned about this area and that he has raised issues—as, indeed, has the noble Lord, Lord Brooke—which merit reply.
	The importance of this matter is already well understood by the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, who have responded magnificently to the challenges in this area. I accept precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, indicated—that one cannot foresee the crises which occur in particularly expensive areas of expenditure—and we all recognise the difficulties of responding to them. The Heritage Lottery Fund has made 451 awards for the acquisition of works of art and cultural objects by museums and galleries, with a total value of £135 million, and its success rate has been over 86 per cent. It has awarded more than £1 billion for the conservation of 9,500 historic buildings. We all recognise particularly significant achievements in these areas. Noble Lords will recall the great debate, great concern and eventual great joy over the possible sale out of this country of Raphael's "The Madonna of the Pinks", which was saved several years ago, Botticelli's "The Virgin Adoring the Sleeping Christ Child", and Stubbs's "Whistlejacket". They are some of the really big items because they ran into millions. In addition to these works of art, which were of national concern and required—and then achieved—national contributions, there have been many smaller items which benefit visitors to museums and galleries up and down the country.
	There are also cultural objects of national importance in the fields of industrial, maritime and transport heritage. Noble Lords will be aware of the support that has been given to the Royal Scot, for example, which certainly captured the public imagination. For a wider public, perhaps, not everything which is treasured is necessarily to be found in an art gallery or a museum. The Royal Scot, of course, is very much a part of our industrial and transport heritage. The Heritage Lottery Fund has given more than £500 million, which has included the conservation of cultural objects of national importance in addition to the Royal Scot. These are lottery grants.
	However, let us not forget the grants made by the National Heritage Memorial Fund, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred. This is supervised by the same trustees but is, of course, funded by the taxpayer. The majority of the £220 million that this fund has provided over the past 26 years has been for acquisitions of this kind. It has saved more than 1,200 iconic objects and places for the nation—including Tyntesfield House—since the fund was established 26 years ago. Its annual budget will shortly rise from £5 million to £10 million.
	The amendment is drawn so widely that the fund already considerably exceeds the 10 per cent figure. On this occasion, the trouble is that the amendment is unnecessarily restrictive, and could place an upper limit on this activity, which I know that both noble Lords who have spoken agree is a valuable form of expenditure. In addition, who can honestly say that we have any criteria on which to decide whether the figure should be 10 per cent rather than 5 per cent or 15 per cent? How do we know what percentage is required? I would have said that this is above all a responsibility for the trustees, and is not one for us to put in legislation, which might be enabling but could as easily be restrictive in identifying such a percentage. The trustees have the information available to assess the competing needs and opportunities to which they can respond. It is important to reaffirm from the Dispatch Box that we will continue to give the Heritage Lottery Fund the flexibility to respond to the opportunities and at times—inevitably—crises that occur with regard to significant artefacts.
	Were there any question of the issue going to a vote, I would have to challenge the particular figure identified, but as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has kindly said, his amendment is probing. I guess that his figure is intended to stimulate debate rather than as a categorical amendment to the Bill. I believe that the Heritage Lottery Fund has demonstrated that it is a sensible and effective team and can be relied on to decide fairly between competing priorities. I do not think that it will be aided by a percentage figure inscribed in legislation, with all the permanence that that would indicate. I do not think that the amendment is necessary, or that it would be helpful as presented. I appreciate, however, that the noble Viscount has taken the opportunity to raise an important consideration, which is foremost in our minds with regard to national lottery funds. We have every confidence that the trustees responsible for this sector of the lottery and its distribution will make the right decisions. I therefore hope that he will be prepared to withdraw his probing amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 6, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) such other persons as he thinks appropriate"

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: This is a very simple amendment, and I hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically. Clause 8 empowers the Secretary of State to make an order transferring the balances from one lottery distributor to another. I do not quite follow the logic or the benefits of making such a transfer unless the lottery distributor was supremely incompetent and it was evident that the applicants and the public were being disadvantaged. I hope that the Secretary of State will never have to use this power. The Bill now makes it clear that if the power is used, the balances so transferred must still be allowed for the same purposes. If they are transferred from the Big Lottery Fund, they must still be used for the purposes for which the Big Lottery Fund is set up to fulfil. If they are transferred from the Heritage Lottery Fund, they must still be used for heritage purposes. The relevant sector should not lose the money, so that is a helpful provision.
	The Bill also requires the affirmative procedure of both Houses before a transfer of balances can be made. That is also helpful, as the Secretary of State will not be encouraged to use the power lightly. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult the other lottery distributor to which the balances may be transferred, as well as the relevant authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, before the order is made. But there is no express provision for consultation with the persons most affected or with bodies concerned with the sector as a whole. That is what I seek to achieve through this small amendment. If money was to be transferred, many people would have relevant questions to ask. If, for example, money was being transferred from the Heritage Lottery Fund, what arrangements would there be for the new distributor to take expert advice on heritage matters? What knowledge of the issues would it have? What resources would it have? What would be the effect on applicants whose applications were caught up in the process through no fault of their own? Would it be reasonable to make the transfer at all? Is there a case for doing so?
	Many different bodies—from the National Amenity Societies and English Heritage to representatives of the Churches, including, at national level, the inter-denominational Churches Main Committee, which I chair, and Anglican organisations such as the Council for the Care of Churches, the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England, and the Church Heritage Forum—would have a legitimate need to be satisfied that the arrangements were going to make things better, not worse. With the thousands of Church buildings up and down the country, so many of which are the physical and social centres of their communities, Church bodies would have a major interest in such proposals, as might many applicants for large sums of money whose applications could be seriously jeopardised or at least very badly delayed by such a transfer, and as might villages, towns and cities where they are located. The views of these bodies should be sought. Exactly the same principles would apply if balances were being transferred from any other distributor, as this clause applies to them all.
	My amendment would therefore require consultation with such persons as the Secretary of State thought appropriate before an order was made. It does not define precisely who those persons would be; that must depend on the circumstances. But it does require the Secretary of State to consider and consult. I note there is already a very similar provision in the Bill to deal with situations in Clauses 7 and 14, which both require the Secretary of State to consult other persons. Both refer to,
	"such other persons (if any) as he thinks appropriate".
	I have not included "if any" in my amendment, as I cannot conceive of circumstances in which consultation would not be appropriate, but because the Bill already accepts this principle of statutory consultation, I sincerely hope the Minister will accept it in Clause 8, too. He may say that it is not necessary to include it in the Bill because consultation will be good practice anyway. I very much hope that consultation will indeed take place, but it would be far preferable and would give more certainty to have this provision enshrined in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate because he has presented an argument which I need to address, whereas I am having difficulty in thinking up fresh arguments over those I deployed earlier in response to the preceding amendment, although I do have one. But I do not want to appear too unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in raising the point. I shall come to it later when I have summoned up enough courage to confront him on it.
	First, on the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate, of course we would openly and clearly conduct any process involving the reallocation of a distributor's balance or part of that balance. We would not do it in secret. The process would need to be open in order to maintain confidence in the whole operation of the lottery and the distribution of the resources. Interested parties, including the very important role played by the Church of England in crucial parts of the lottery distribution, would have every opportunity to comment on the proposed use of this power. Ministers were pressed on this point in another place and every assurance was given then. I am pleased to re-emphasise those points today.
	We would expect to publish the reasons for carrying out an act as significant as the use of the reallocation power. As I have indicated all along, this is not meant to be anything except a power to be used only in dire extremis when things have gone wrong to the extent that significant balance reductions are not being effected in line with recommendations made by the National Audit Office itself. Further, any use of the power would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and it is certainly the case that all interests would have an opportunity to make their position clear—not least on the part of the Church of England in this House through its representation on the Bishops' Benches. I can give full assurances on consultation.
	I turn to Amendment No. 7. I fall back on the arguments used in response to the previous amendment: we are considering this only against a background of extreme circumstances. Let me describe the present position. The overall lottery distribution fund balance has fallen substantially from a peak of £3.7 billion in 1999 to just over £2.2 billion today. That is a reduction of about 40 per cent. It is good progress, but not as good as we would like. But for all the reasons I have already outlined, I know that all noble Lords recognise that there are reasons why there should be balances. Flows of money from the lottery take place at a certain rate because difficult judgments must be made about effective allocation. A very thorough vetting process is employed before the granting of those resources. However, I can assure noble Lords that the Government would not seek to use the reallocation order-making power in this clause without giving the matter the fullest consideration.
	I employed that argument in response to the last amendment and I use it again now—and I add one for the noble Lord who at times is a little dismissive of my answers. I speak having given full consideration not only to the issues in the Bill but to his judiciously placed amendments. However, this is one of his least judicious amendments. Here he confuses a very important constitutional position. By involving the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the work of the Executive—because that is what he would be doing if the C&AG were involved in this process—he would involve an individual with the powers of the C&AG in decisions that are properly matters for the Executive. That would undermine the strength of the comptroller's role. He and his office are held in such high repute because of their total independence from government. We could not possibly have a situation where the role of audit and evaluation on behalf of the public of actions taken by the Executive in their spending decisions were compromised because the comptroller himself had become a part of the decision-making process. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will rethink this part of his amendment.
	I do not suggest to the noble Lord that he should abandon his amendment in its entirety at this early stage. He would come back to the issue on Report and, if I were in a lot of trouble, at Third Reading as well. But I hope that the noble Lord will think again on this issue because here he offends one of the constitutional principles by which we all abide, and I am not prepared for him to fall again into such a pit of error. If he does so again, he will find that I am equally robust in rejecting his amendments. However, I am sure that he will withdraw his amendment today and that if he does bring it back, it will be in a better form.

Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that response. The right reverend Prelate made some extremely good points in regard to his amendment. Indeed, I thought that the Minister—in contrast to my own amendment—rather conceded the case. If I may make so bold, the right reverend Prelate should be encouraged to bring his amendment back at the next stage. The Minister did not have an argument against it at all. Like the other clauses quoted by the right reverend Prelate, clearly it would make sense to include an additional requirement for consultation here, as is the case in so many other clauses.
	I waited with trepidation after the Minister trailed the howitzer of an argument that he was going to use, but I am afraid that when it finally appeared it was more of a mouse than anything else. I must say that it is precisely because the NAO is independent that it is included in this amendment. According to those in the many organisations who have urged me to move the amendment, it is precisely because of the constitutional position of the NAO that they wish to see it at least as the body advising on the situation in those circumstances. Because there is worry about the Government's motives and interests in those circumstances, they wish to see the NAO operate as an independent body. Aside from that point, the Minister has himself admitted that he has no fresh arguments. So once he has conceded—and I hope he will—that it is precisely because of the independence of the NAO that it appears in the amendment and that there ought to be a reserve power in those circumstances, I cannot see that he has an argument against the NAO. So I look forward to the next stage of the Bill when I expect a different and more favourable response from the Minister. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Investment income]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: I rise to oppose the Motion that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill. As I made clear on Second Reading, the provisions in this clause cause me considerable concern on behalf of those who look after historic buildings, particularly our historic churches and cathedrals.
	The intention behind the provision is one of strict logic. Lottery distributors are given a specific proportion of proceeds from lottery tickets and any interests they accrue on the balances they hold shall be allocated in the same proportion. No lottery distributor can gain extra, as it were, by holding on to its balances in order to get more interest than the others. All distributors are treated equally. This may be a logical approach but it has significant consequences. That is why I and others in the heritage world are concerned.
	The body most affected by this will be the Heritage Lottery Fund. Simply because of the great wealth of the historic environment, HLF will have a significant task on its hands. As I have said in earlier debates and at Second Reading, 45 per cent of the Grade I listed buildings in the country are Church of England churches and the repair needs alone of churches and cathedrals are very considerable. A survey of the 16,000 parishes in 2003 and the quinquennial report showed that £373 million—or probably more—was needed for repairs. This takes no account of significant projects that churches may wish to carry out in the interests of the wider community.
	Major projects on buildings—be they repairs or new works—take time and money. Once applicants have been offered a grant, they need to finalise the funding package, make sure they have the necessary consents, draw up specifications, go to tender and instruct builders. Even when they start work, HLF will not pay all the money immediately; it will want to see that progress is satisfactory. HLF, meanwhile, must make sure that it has the money it has committed. It cannot allocate it elsewhere. It can only depend, to a certain extent, on money coming from further lottery tickets. So it must keep some money in the bank. This is not a perverse incentive to hold on to balances to gain interest; it is simply being prudent to ensure that the money is there when needed.
	Clause 9 will therefore reduce the total available to them. Interestingly—I do not know whether the Government have thought this through—it will also mean that HLF is subsidising other lottery distributors. Perhaps I may illustrate this point using figures that are easy to grasp. Let us say that the total interest accrued by all lottery distributors to their balances is £100 million. Let us also say that the proportion of that accumulated by balances held by HLF is £30 million. At present, HLF keeps it and it can be used to augment its existing income. Under Clause 9, it would keep only £16.5 million—16.5 per cent—just as it receives 16.5 per cent of lottery proceeds in the first place. This means that HLF would lose £13.5 million—at least in the simple example I have given—and that £13.5 million would be shared among the other lottery distributors. They gain extra funds—which is very nice for them—as a result of the needs of the heritage sector to hold money for major capital works. I question whether that is right.
	The Government have recently consulted on the future of the lottery and what the priorities should be after 2009. The question of the moneys available to heritage, both from taxpayers' money and lottery funding, needs to be addressed seriously. Heritage and our churches need more money, not less. The same message is coming in consistently from the General Synod of the Church of England and from English Heritage and the Inspired! campaign that they are shortly to launch. Repair grants for churches are no higher now in real terms than they were in 1994 and have kept their level only because of the contribution of HLF itself. In the same period, building costs have risen by 70 per cent. Churches matter to the people of this country, be they worshippers or not. They contribute considerably to the social capital of the community and yet they are largely dependent on volunteers and need more help.
	If the Minister is adamant on retaining the clause, I hope he will be able to reassure the Committee that heritage will receive a significantly greater proportion of the total lottery funds after 2009 in compensation, to enable us, as a country, to look after our inheritance and to enable us and others to enjoy and appreciate it as it deserves.

Viscount Astor: I did not leap to my feet when the question of whether Clause 9 should stand part of the Bill was brought to the attention of the Committee, although I have put my name to it. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Brooke if that has caused some confusion. It is, of course, open to any noble Lord to speak to any clause even if they have not put their name forward to oppose it. This is done to help the Minister, who then knows that he might have to reply. I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate—it was remiss of me not to instantly rise to my feet—because he has raised an extremely important issue. In my slightly muddled state, I thought that we had covered most of the issues on the previous two amendments. But, of course, we had not, and I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising the matter.
	Our concerns about Clauses 8 and 9 are connected. I shall, of course, listen carefully to the Minister's arguments but I think we will have to come back to both clauses and press the Government further. We have to get our amendments right. Clearly there is a problem here on which the Government have not sufficiently satisfied us. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I will return to this matter at the next stage. But, of course, we shall listen with great care to the Minister now because he may or may not convince us.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I can assure the Committee that I am always prepared for stand part debates. As has been indicated, it is the privilege of noble Lords to speak in clause stand part debates whenever they choose. We are grateful when it is indicated beforehand because it enables us to polish up and refine our arguments even more than usual. So if this reply is a little rusty and a little crude, it is because I was not quite certain that the clause stand part question would be debated on the basis of the right reverend Prelate's arguments, which I fully respect.
	I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that the proposed new arrangements in the clause are designed to make matters fairer and more transparent for all and not to penalise particular good causes or distributors. The question of the position of churches was aired substantially in the other place, not least, of course, because the distributor is the one which is likely to have the longest time lag between distribution and effect. When we were discussing earlier amendments in this area we gave due recognition to the fact that long-term commitments would have to be entered into which would need to be respected. I want to reiterate the reassurances that I hoped I had given on that amendment.
	We cannot tell how quickly the present balances will be reduced. I indicated that they had been reduced by 40 per cent since 1999. That progress is not as fast as we would wish. We reiterate that, as the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee attest, unnecessary large balances are not of benefit to the nation. Those who benefit from them are few and far between. Some distributors might feel slightly reassured by the fact that they can meet any possible demand made on them, but they also know that the National Audit Office does not think much of it, that the Public Accounts Committee is critical, and that the Government want them to come down, as they want to see the money used intelligently. The pressure is there.
	The anxieties articulated by the right reverend Prelate must also be taken into account. The Heritage Lottery Fund must not be put in a position in which it cannot support its many worthy projects, of which churches are a significant part because of their significance both in architectural terms and for local communities. With balances continuing to fall, in line with Government policy, the new arrangements, by the time that they are likely to take effect, will have no major impact on any particular good cause or distributor. We are talking about substantial balances being run down; we are not talking about a dramatic occurrence with an adverse effect on anybody. No distributor is quaking under the pressure being exerted to get balances down. Nor would any recipient have cause for alarm about a concern to ensure that the distributor is distributing rather than holding on to resources that could usefully be deployed in the community. I give that reassurance to the right reverend Prelate.
	I am grateful for this short debate. I hope that I have clarified the significance of Clause 9. The clause produces a formula for a position of last resort which encourages progress on reducing these balances and putting them to good use for the community. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel reassured enough to agree to the clause remaining in the Bill.

Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Distributing bodies: consultation]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he moved the amendment. I think I know where he is coming from, and I greatly applaud the objectives of his amendment, although I will ask him to withdraw it.
	As I see it, the noble Lord's argument is that distributors should take a suitably strategic approach before putting a major lottery award to a public vote or consulting relevant experts. I imagine that he is worried that the less popular causes might miss out, because of a great number of misconceptions about where lottery money goes, of which he gave an excellent illustration. I recognise that consideration. We are aware of the importance of worthwhile causes which, for whatever reason, do not have mass support but merit consideration.
	Let me emphasise first that we have no intention of putting more than a small proportion of distribution decisions to public votes. In each case, distributors will take great care in making the necessary preparations. The power is not compulsory for distributors but permissive and enabling. It makes clear that distributors have the power to take account of public views when making distribution decisions if they wish to do so, and where they think that it is appropriate. That will include consultation with appropriate bodies, sometimes in the voluntary and community sector and sometimes the devolved administrations, as mentioned in the amendment. In other cases, other bodies entirely will be consulted; it will depend on the subject of the grant.
	I understand the noble Lord's anxiety and I am glad he has aired it this afternoon. But the problem with the amendment is that it would require each distributor to carry out a consultation process with the Secretary of State, the voluntary and community sector and the devolved Administrations for every award of grant, regardless of whether it was relevant to them and regardless of whether the award involved public consultation. That is a pretty considerable burden to place on the distributors, and a costly one too. It would also make lottery distributors dependent on the Government because, before the grants were made, there would have to be consultation with government. A significant principle is that the distributors make decisions independent of government. The amendment would also increase the time taken to award grants, yet, with very significant balances, we have been discussing the necessity of streamlining the process of allocating new grants so that the money can be used intelligently and quickly.
	The measures in the Bill are designed to help lottery money go more quickly and efficiently to good cause projects and to reduce unspent balances. The distributors already consult widely, and we already have policy directions to set the overall framework. That seems to be the necessary basis on which this structure can work. I fear that the amendment goes too far. It would compromise certain important principles and slow the whole process down when the Government are getting general public support for trying to make the process more efficient, distributing funds more effectively and quickly and reducing the unspent balances. That is why I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that despite this good cause, the amendment is not the appropriate way in which to amend the Bill.

Lord Clement-Jones: In moving Amendment No. 11, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 12 as well. These are probing amendments, designed to look at the width and intentions of the clause. The Minister, being his usual astute self, will have noticed that they both stretch the clause in different directions.
	The first amendment is designed to tease out where the Government are coming from in terms of requirements on the distributors to publicise their activities. The lottery operator has a sense of frustration about how the fact that these projects are funded by the National Lottery does not always come through. Some progress has been made in developing a good causes common brand via the National Lottery Promotions Unit—blue crossed fingers, blue plaques, and so on. The power now resides in the Bill but what sort of injunction will be placed on the distributors? There is sometimes negative coverage of the National Lottery as a concept, but very rarely is that counteracted by good publicity for the fact that good projects are funded. The transformation of our museums in London has been due to National Lottery funding, but I wonder whether that really comes through.
	The second amendment to Clause 11 reflects a number of different concerns. Could the wording of the clause place, if not an obligation, certainly a moral imperative, on the distributors to publicise the lottery itself? Many voluntary organisations and some distributors feel extremely nervous and, indeed, negative about this issue. Why should there be a duty to promote the National Lottery? They should publicise the projects but not participation.
	There are many other ways in which voluntary organisations will want to promote charitable giving. They do not want to be driven down a narrow channel of saying, "Really, folks, you should be publicising participation in the National Lottery as the way of contributing to our charitable cause".
	I will be interested to hear a lot more from the Minister about the thinking and motives behind the clause. What publicity would the Government like to see? What kind of publicity do they think is appropriate? Would it be purely of projects, or will distributors really be asked to encourage participation in the National Lottery? I beg to move.

Lord Pendry: I am glad to support Amendment No. 11 and to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate on this important Bill. I have said previously in this House that I tend to worry that I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on too many occasions. I have done so twice in some 10 days and three times in three weeks. The Committee must not read too much into this; it is just that, now and again, he can be right.
	I have been a foremost supporter of the National Lottery since I was asked by the late John Smith to lead for the then-opposition on the original Bill in 1993 in another place. Voting for that Bill at Third Reading and convincing some of my colleagues to do likewise was not an easy task. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will remember the difficulty that I had. Many reservations were expressed by members of my party, understandably so by those who represented Liverpool constituencies and who were concerned about jobs in the football pools industry. However, our Front Bench were able eventually to assure many of the dissidents of the overriding importance of introducing a national lottery which would benefit many good causes and create many jobs in the process.
	I have witnessed at first hand the importance of the lottery through my roles as chairman of the Football Trust and as chairman, and now president, of the Football Foundation, which has supported projects worth more than £365 million since it was launched in 2000. It has £63 million worth of projects in the pipeline. I therefore support Amendment No. 11, which would place an important duty on those responsible for distributing lottery money to attribute and promote the National Lottery as the source of this funding. This is an important commitment, which will have a hugely beneficial impact on improving public confidence in, and understanding of, the lottery.
	Camelot deserves due recognition for its role in operating the lottery. The National Lottery is experiencing its longest-ever period of growth, which means more for good causes. Lottery sales remain the foundation for maximising returns to good causes. Impressive results led to an increase of nearly £60 million in returns to good causes in the year to 31 March 2005. That is an increase of 4.6 per cent.
	Our lottery is in good health—that is for sure—but we should not be complacent about the fundamental role that public confidence in, and support for, the lottery plays in maintaining its success and the money that is consequently available for good causes. Too often, we see in the newspapers yet more criticism of how lottery money is spent and an outcry about the suitability of certain projects to receive lottery funding. When do we see enough coverage of the many good stories that result from National Lottery money?
	Strengthening the wording of the Bill to ensure that distributors properly accredit the National Lottery for the numerous projects that it funds would help to counter this mood and increase public understanding of the lottery's benefit to society as a whole. Promotion of the lottery is a task for the operator, but distributors should be energetic in demonstrating the good that its money has done.
	I understand that some progress has been made, as was mentioned earlier, in introducing the blue plaques and a National Lottery good cause common brand. Such plaques are virtual or real and are adorned with the well known crossed-fingers logo. They identify where lottery funding has been used to raise public awareness. I commend this work, but would like to see it extended to have the strongest impact on the public. Placing a blue plaque on every project which receives funding; making formal recognition of lottery funding a condition of each lottery grant; and requiring distributors to report annually on how they are promoting the lottery brand would increase the public stature of the lottery. Those activities could be pursued under the terms of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will explain the progress being made on this.
	As the lottery matures and faces increasing competition from the gambling sector, this kind of acknowledgement is vital to keep public interest and confidence high. As chair of the parliamentary All-Party Group on Sport and president of the Football Foundation, I have argued this point for some time. I fully understand the importance of lottery funding to the health of sport in the UK. Moreover, we should not forget the vital contribution that lottery money will make to our ability to host a fantastic Olympic Games in 2012.
	I urge the Minister to support the amendment as an effective way of maintaining and building public confidence in the lottery and the good causes that it funds, and to do so in the interests of all those who believe in the lottery. The Government should make a commitment to ensuring that the amendment is carried.

Viscount Astor: Before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, replies, I would like to press the Minister on one issue. Paragraph (c) in Clause 11 talks about,
	"encouraging participation relating to the activities relating to the National Lottery in general".
	It is the words "in general" that give us some concern. Following what the Minister said about the promotional board, perhaps he would consider allying our fears by considering a better wording for that clause that made it absolutely clear to the distributing bodies that they were promoting that part of the National Lottery, and not the part that relates to Camelot. Perhaps some redrafting could be considered.

Viscount Astor: We now move to the thorny and difficult issue of additionality. One of the problems there has been throughout the debate as this Bill has passed through another place and this House is that the Government have always accepted the principle of additionality but have never admitted when they have broken it. It is perfectly clear that they have broken it on a number of occasions. Indeed, that is not just my view but is also the view of the National Audit Office and of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in another place—which I remind the Minister has a majority of Members of his party.
	The question is, what can be done about it? I wish to discuss my Amendment No. 13 and Amendment No. 14, which concerns reporting, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in the next group. We need to have a debate about the principles of additionality. I shall not go through the list of what has been given out. Every time that is brought up in another place the Minister tells the various Members who have spoken what their constituencies have received. However, I want to consider the principles of additionality. The Minister, Mr Caborn, said:
	"The Government provide money to some charities, which is not core Government spending. Does that mean that the lottery should not give more to charities? The Government provide money to arts, sports and heritage in many areas—that is not core, or mainstream, Government spending. Does that mean that lottery funding cannot be used as well?".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/06; col. 1013.]
	I was rather amazed by that. I do not know whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has changed since I was there or, indeed, since my noble friend Lord Brooke was there but handing out money that was not core is not something that we would have got past the Treasury, which had a rather clear view of what was core spending and what was not. I do not think that when my noble friend was Secretary of State he ever handed out government money that was not core. Mr Caborn's statement is therefore extraordinary and I should be interested to hear how the Minister can justify it or perhaps explain to us what it means. It seems to me that when a department hands out money it is core spending. When the Government hand out money to the arts or sports, they do so through various distributing bodies, for example, the Arts Council. The argument put forward by Mr Caborn does not hold water.
	A further argument put forward was that the process would be subject to legal challenge. I am not aware of many legal challenges to the lottery being brought forward at the moment and I do not think that defining "additionality" would increase that likelihood. I am told—I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on this—that the distributors of the Community Fund were sometimes concerned that if they did not award grants, they would be challenged and that they were almost pressed into awarding grants because they could not adequately define their reasons for not giving them. We believe that the distributing bodies should have the freedom to decide whether to give grants. Then we are in the lucky position of applauding the decisions that we like and criticising those we do not—that is the nature of it. We believe that the distributing bodies should be independent of government. However, as we have heard throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government want to exert power when they decide to do so.
	The Minister said in another place that the distributing bodies would report on additionality. That is interesting for two reasons. They will comment on that only in the reports that they publicise and lay before Parliament. That is merely a commitment; we have no way of making it happen. They do not have to do it. That measure certainly needs to be written into the Bill. The matter is interesting in that it opens up the whole concept of how they are going to do it. If the distributing bodies are to report on additionality, how will they define it? The Minister must think that they can define it if they are to report on it. If it can be defined by the distributing bodies, it can be defined in the Bill. You cannot have it both ways. The distributing bodies are going to report on additionality.
	The Minister might look at my amendment on core government spending and say that I have not used the right words. I am happy to discuss any changes that could be made to the wording of my amendment but it seems to me that the principle is sound. If the distributing bodies can report on what is additional and what is not, it must be possible to have that protection in the Bill. The Minister in another place has given a commitment that that will happen. This is such an important provision that we need it in the Bill.
	If the Minister were able to say that the principles of additionality have been broken but we shall ensure that they are never broken again, that might go a long way to satisfy us, but, unfortunately, I suspect that the Minister will be unable to give us that commitment at the Dispatch Box. That is why we need something in the Bill. I remain flexible. I am not entirely sure whether my amendment or Amendment No. 14 of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is the right one. However, the principle needs to be in the Bill to make it clear to everybody. It needs to be included—I refer to amendments that we discussed earlier—given the new, large, wide-ranging powers that the Government have to prescribe. Those powers of prescription relate to the Big Lottery Fund which, after all, will take 50 per cent of all the funds available to the distributing bodies. Therefore, this is an important principle that we need to debate. We need something in the Bill as a protection in that regard.
	The Minister may tell me that my amendment is unworkable, in which case I would be delighted for him to advise me what would work. I am sure that he will be kind enough to do that. I hope that the Government will accept the important principle here. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I intervene only because the whole additionality principle was extremely important when I was on the National Lottery Charities Board, which I had the honour of serving during its first few years. Two issues exercised us greatly then, and I have no doubt that they exercise the different boards no less now: first, their independence from government and, secondly, additionality. We set sail originally on the absolute assurance by the Conservative government of the day that the boards, and the National Lottery Charities Board in particular, would not be expected to fund those expenditures which were the normal obligation of government to fund. That was felt to be particularly evident in the health and education sectors, and yet as we know there have been quite a few expenditures in the intervening years that I would have said breached that principle. It is not only me who is saying that; many are saying it.
	For example, in the NHS the National Lottery Charities Board has funded a good deal of advanced medical equipment that is available in some hospitals through government expenditure but which had not been available in other hospitals. There is considerable virtue in trying to get a handle on that thorny issue if at all possible. I say "if at all possible" because I well sympathise with the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen on how to incorporate this principle—if you can call it a principle—in legislation in a way that will not cause as many problems as it solves.
	The noble Viscount has advanced a bold and useful amendment, and I will listen not merely attentively but with fascination to what the Minister says. My sense is that the wording of the amendment is defective in a number of respects. The noble Viscount made no particular claims for the merits of the wording; he was merely trying to get the issue into play. To talk about core government spending is a dubious advantage, because I doubt very much that it is possible to say what "core" is in this regard. No doubt the Minister will come back on that.
	I want to say something about Section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which gives significant control to the Secretary of State over the distributing bodies as to the,
	"matters to be taken into account in determining the persons to whom and the purposes for which . . . and in determining conditions"
	subject to which the body distributes any money. Proposed new Section 36E is entitled "Directions", and it concerns the Big Lottery Fund. One sees there a creep in government control, because there is no doubt that the directions that can be given under proposed new Section 36E are considerably wider and more specific than the controls permissible now under Section 26 of the 1993 Act. The directions include the power of the Secretary of State not just to give directions as to the matters to be taken into account but, if this Bill goes through, he would be able to specify the persons to whom the fund may make grants, the purposes for which the fund would make grants and so on. That is evidence of what one might call a natural inclination of government to claw as much power into the hands of the Secretary of State as possible. No doubt all governments are strapped for cash at different points in time, and the more power they have to direct those funds in the different distributing bodies the more it can be used in effect to replace state funding. I could quite understand that if I were sitting where the Minister sits, I should be quite happy to see those powers retained in the Bill.
	All of that is another way of saying that, if it is possible, we should have something in the Bill on the issue of additionality. It goes to the heart of the way in which the National Lottery was established, and it would give great confidence to the different boards that they are not going to be put under undue stress by governments of whatever hue. I support the intent of the amendment.

Lord Smith of Finsbury: I rise briefly to endorse the words of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and who performed a magnificent role in her task as the leader of one of the lottery boards. She clearly identified the central difficulty of this discussion, because the principle of additionality is sensible and vital. It rests on the concept that what lottery boards spend should not replace government spending, but should add to it. That is the heart of the principle, but the moment you go beyond the heart and you try to put it in black and white into a piece of legislation, it becomes much more difficult.
	I would defend to the hilt the fact that the Government's spending from the Exchequer on the arts, sport and heritage are core government responsibilities. I would defend to the hilt the fact that they should be and, I hope, always will be, part of the usual expenditure of government. But we have happily accepted that lottery boards' spending on arts, sport and heritage is fulfilling completely the additionality principle. I would argue that exactly the same point applies to the activities to be supported by the Big Lottery Fund. Exactly the same point applied to the activities and facilities that were supported by the New Opportunities Fund. It is very difficult to tie in place by some neat definition the broad principle that we endorse on all sides of this House. The Government have broadly got it right in this legislation. I would be sad if in searching for something even better, we actually to make it worse, and I fear that that is what we might be in danger of doing if we tried to tie that too precisely with the wording proposed in the amendment.
	The principle is right. I look forward to hearing the Government's ringing endorsement of the principle and ensure that the people they appoint to run the lottery boards understand the importance of that principle, too. Let us not try to make the best the enemy of the good.

Lord Clement-Jones: By speaking at the tail end of this debate I have a major advantage in that I can agree with almost everything that noble Lords on both sides of the argument have said. I very much support the spirit of the amendment. It would be highly desirable to have a definition of additionality in the Bill, but it is a holy grail—in both 1993 and 1998 attempts were made to try to formulate an appropriate definition.
	Mr Caborn, as the noble Viscount pointed out, did himself no favours when he responded on the additionality argument. He made a series of different blusters. I would never accuse a Minister of that kind of language. It would be a "lawyer's paradise"; it would result in bureaucracy—there was a series of unconvincing reasons. The reason that appeared not to have been given was the difficulty of definition, which I would have thought should have been the first argument to be made.
	The strange thing about the issue is that at the higher level, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, pointed out, we all agree that additionality was one of the founding principles of the National Lottery and if we left matters there, we would probably all be in wild agreement on that principle. But when you reach the second tier, the NCVO, for example, defines additionality as funding which is additional to that which is properly funded by government and not a substitute for it and that it should not be used to fund essential services or government-inspired programmes.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, pointed out that you can shift, and that the voluntary sector often paves the way for government funding, which creates its own set of difficulties. The Minister made a valiant attempt on Second Reading to define it in a broad way. He said:
	"There is a very big difference between agreeing priorities and outcomes that align with government priorities and using lottery funding to substitute for government expenditure. We are not doing the latter".
	He continued:
	"Lottery money is not just for spending in areas where no government spending would ever take place. That would be an impossible situation. We expect the lottery to spend on top of things which government would normally fund".—[Official Report, 6/2/06; col. 498.]
	We probably agree with the first half of what the Minister said. In the second half he almost reaches the point of saying, "If it isn't in the budget for this year for a particular government department, then it is additional". Such matters require careful teasing out, which illustrates the difficulties and why the amendment that we shall consider later might be preferable.
	It is extraordinary that even after 13 years we still do not have a working definition that is agreed by all parties—government, opposition and the voluntary sector. It is high time that we had some sort of definition and I very much hope that the distributors, by inserting in their annual reports what they believe to have been additional, will help to define matters—because each will need to consult with the others on how they describe it. The 60 per cent to 70 per cent rule mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will be helpful in that regard and we may, in time, arrive at a working definition.
	For the moment, I would say "Yes, in spirit", but I am not sure that we are quite there.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I recall 1993 Bill and the debates that we had on additionality in the Commons, including the Opposition's attacks mounted by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, as he is now and who has temporarily left his place. The Opposition's pressure was considerable and totally proper. One of the outcomes was that after the Bill become law there was major emphasis on capital projects by the various distributors, because no one could have suggested that they were not additional, given that they had not previously existed.
	There was an example of British genius, particularly the genius of Lord Rothschild, the then chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It occurred to him that as Secretary of State I was also the chairman of the Millennium Commission, which was one of the distributors. He asked me quietly, "Would it be helpful if I gave a dinner for the chairmen of all the distributors, to which you would come in your capacity as chairman of the Millennium Commission, so that we could have an informal discussion on the kind of directions and guidance it would be helpful for the Secretary of State to give all of us, including me?". That occurred, and—this is a totally egotistical remark—my appreciation of Lord Rothschild in that regard was that it enabled us, in the directions and guidance, to emphasise architecture as something the distributors should emphasise in decisions relating to the various applicants. That was an example of British genius, for the coincidence of resources with the reputation of British architecture in that era meant that we could reinforce a category of artists who, while not pre-eminent in the world, were widely spread throughout the world.
	Regarding the problem of prescription, which occupied us earlier and which underlies this issue, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who led the Department for Culture, Media and Sport during the evolution of the Labour Government's policies on these matters, of a magical moment when he was due to make a Statement on the future of the National Lottery later that afternoon. By coincidence, perhaps by convenient coincidence, DCMS Questions were being asked at 2.30 pm. I took the liberty of asking his Minister of State, Mr Tom Clarke, to remind the House of the Government's current definition of additionality. Mr Clarke fell back on saying that if I did not know, the Secretary of State would be letting us know later in the afternoon. But it suggested that his mastery of the policy at that moment was not absolutely overwhelming.
	This is an immensely worthwhile debate and I am looking forward to the Minister's reply. I am conscious of the dinner hour and shall sit down shortly, but I will ask again the paving question that I asked on Amendment No. 2. When, particularly in the context of the Big Lottery Fund, it is determined whether additionality is being practised or offended against, does the primary responsibility lie with the Secretary of State in the prescriptions that he gives or with the chairman of the distributor body in carrying out its part of the equation?

Lord Davies of Oldham: This has been a fascinating debate and, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the Government agree with the spirit. That is the nature of the problem, but we are dealing with legislation. At Second Reading, I challenged the Opposition to come forward with an amendment that would work in legislation. We all subscribe to the principle—that was enjoined in the early days of the development of the National Lottery. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, expressed just how categorical one could be about certain areas where one could say, "We'll support capital projects". There was a clear definition, because those projects were not undertaken by the government of the day and they were clearly additional. But we all know that the lottery has moved on considerably in recent years and there is a whole range of expenditure where matters are by no means so clear. I was enormously grateful to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who has vast experience of these matters, for identifying just how difficult this issue is. She defined the problem with accuracy and was supported by my noble friend Lord Smith, who has also had enormous experience in this area.
	Of course, we all support the spirit. I make no bones about it: we are not going to resile in any way, shape or form from the spirit of additionality. We challenged the Opposition to produce an amendment that would translate this issue into effective law, because, with our combined resources through two Administrations over more than a decade, we have not been able to do so in a satisfactory way. That is the nature of our problem.
	I heard the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, castigating my right honourable friend Mr Caborn. As I understand it, my right honourable friend Mr Caborn was merely saying, "I have a department whose core funding is quite clear. It spends a great deal on the arts; it spends a great deal on sport; and it spends a great deal on other worthwhile projects. I don't know where it ends and the National Lottery begins easily in these terms". I imagine that the Minister of State, replying to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who was then in the Commons, was wrestling with the same problem. We all do, as do the Opposition in putting forward this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, indicated, it is not a satisfactory position. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord has the advantage over me of being a lawyer, but I do not know how he translates a common-law principle into a Bill, which will become an Act of Parliament, without giving a precise definition of what certain phrases within it will mean. What would core government funding mean in these terms? I shall not berate the Liberal Democrats at this stage, because I have the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on my side for once in spirit. But in its manifesto at the last general election, the Conservative Party proposed a club-to-school scheme—a scheme under which every child would have the right to two hours of free after-school sports coaching paid for with £750 million of National Lottery money. There is an interesting concept of the voluntary contribution from school teachers in providing support and coaching children as against this additional money—or would it be separate money? Would it be part of government core funding? Clearly not, because the Conservatives intended it to come from the lottery. But we would be pressed to say that no element of after-school coaching in sport for children has anything at all to do with the Department for Education and Skills or the provision that it makes. This distinction will not stand up.
	That is the nature of the Conservative Front Bench's problems—not that I am berating it for making the attempt. In fact, I am guilty of encouraging it, on Second Reading, to try to do that. I greatly applaud its effort. Unfortunately, I can only give marks for incorporating amendments into legislation if they deserve 10 out of 10. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and many others have said, the amendment falls far short of being 10 out of 10, and will not do for legislation. It will not work, although it is a good try. That is why I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will recognise that his amendment will have to be reconsidered and withdraw it.

Baroness Tonge: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the social and economic progress made in Botswana since independence.
	My Lords, in the last few years, I have visited many African countries. It is difficult not to get depressed when one travels around that continent. It is difficult to know where to begin with the multiple problems most African countries have. It was so refreshing when, in 2002, I visited Botswana with some noble Lords from this House and Members from the other place.
	Botswana is an African success story. Admittedly, it has a small population of 1.7 million, but it has nearly 80 per cent literacy, which is beyond the wildest dreams of many of the other countries that I have visited. Education is totally free for the first 10 years, as it has been for many decades. Grant loans are given for university education, which many Botswanans take advantage of. Healthcare is largely free and there are good clinics and hospitals. Botswana has had one of the world's highest economic growth rates since independence in 1966 and is now classed as a middle-income country. I will give no more details of the economy of Botswana, because my noble friend Lord Chidgey will be speaking on that later.
	How has this happened? As I am sure noble Lords will know, in 1966, just after independence, De Beers discovered diamonds in Botswana. Instead of allowing this huge multinational company to exploit Botswana's riches and line its own pockets, the government went into a 50:50 partnership with De Beers, forming the company Debswana. The arrangement should be looked at as a model for other developing countries. It has given Botswana a head start over everyone else; 70 to 80 per cent of its export earnings have come from Debswana, and the public services and infrastructure have been enjoyed by all people as a consequence.
	However, dependence on one industry is not ideal. The Government of Botswana seek to diversify in their "Vision 2016" development plan. Tourism, financial services, subsistence farming and beef cattle farming are due to be encouraged, as well as further mining in other areas. It would be a tragedy if this development plan failed. The Government of Botswana face huge problems. In common with many sub-Saharan African countries, the population is over 25 per cent HIV positive, which affects skilled workers, professionals and, indeed, the business plans of all companies working in the country. This is being tackled by another partnership with a multinational company and the Bill Gates foundation—which my noble friend Lord Jones of Cheltenham wishes to speak about later, so I will not go into detail on that either, to save time. There is high unemployment—24 per cent in 2004—which is why the government want to encourage investment in and expansion of other sectors to provide more jobs.
	Unfortunately, the government are being attacked, and investment hindered, by an NGO campaign from this country to discredit Botswana and its government. Survival International, a British NGO, has been waging war against the Government of Botswana over their treatment of the San people, the Basarwa, known commonly as the Bushmen of the Kalahari. When the Central Kalahari Game Reserve was established around 1961, there were a few thousand Bushmen still in that area. They were hunter-gatherers, with ancient tracking and water-detection skills, killing animals with primitive bows and arrows—on our visit we saw some of them in action. It is very romantic stuff and sounds absolutely wonderful—the stuff of boy scouts. Great if you are a successful Bushman, maybe, but not so great for the Bushwomen and Bushchildren, who have a right to healthcare and education and who may not want to stay in the stone age with their families; they may want an opportunity for another life. In fact, one Basarwa female student has just gained a PhD at a university, which shows what can be done and what aspirations they may have if given the opportunity.
	In recent years, the Bushmen have started hunting with guns, often on horseback or even in old 4 x 4 vehicles. They also demand the right to herd cattle and keep livestock in the Kalahari, which sometimes get eaten by wild animals. The domestic animals not only disturb the ecology of the Kalahari but, when they get eaten by wild animals, the Bushmen also demand compensation from the government. It was impossible for the government to provide education and health services, which the people have a right to, in this terrain and it was very difficult to recruit staff to work in those areas.
	It is worth remembering that the Central Kalahari Game Reserve is 50,300 square kilometres, which is about 40 per cent of the size of England—we are talking about a huge area. Consultation took place between the government and the Bushmen. The majority opted to move to the edge of the game reserve—to New Xade and Kaudwane—where they were given houses, water, schools, relocation allowances and livestock to earn a living. A few Bushmen remained in the game reserve on condition that they pursued their traditional way of live, which they did not. Over time, they brought in livestock and hunted game with guns. These few people, backed by Survival International, are now holding the Government of Botswana to ransom, and a court case is proceeding for the restitution of their land in the Kalahari. The sustainable development of the game reserve, with its fragile ecology, is being help up and the international community is beginning to worry about investment in Botswana. Tourism, which the government wish to encourage, is suffering.
	Survival International has alleged cruelty toward the remaining Bushmen, which has not been substantiated—the allegation has been thoroughly investigated. It has also alleged that De Beers wants to mine the area. Investigations have taken place and De Beers has said that there are no substantial diamonds worth mining in the game reserve. But, even if it did at a future date decide that it was worth doing that, we are talking about a mine that would occupy a very small area, compared with the whole of the game reserve. Nevertheless, De Beers is being targeted by Survival International quite unfairly, especially when we must remember that the company was the instigator of the Kimberley agreement to stamp out conflict diamonds.
	Survival International is using hysterical language to whip up international support. The director, Stephen Cory, said that the relocation of Bushmen is "tantamount to genocide". That is a bit much. He refers to,
	"diamonds dug from the Bushmen's grave".
	These tactics and this language have been condemned even by Botswanan NGOs. BOCONGO—a wonderful acronym; it stands for the Botswanan Council of Non-Governmental Organisations—which includes a lot of human rights organisations, has told Survival International to stay out of it and that it would rather deal with the matter.
	I do not wish to deny that there is a problem here, not just for Bushmen, but for indigenous people in many parts of the world where development has fallen way behind that of Homo sapiens generally. But some sort of balance has to be struck to try to provide for their needs. The UN has produced a draft resolution on their rights, but we must consider the rights of women and children and of those Bushmen who maybe want to choose education and development. We must also consider the rights of the rest of the people in Botswana to prosper and to use their country's resources for the good of the whole county, which Botswana has tried to do ever since independence. It would be a tragedy if this vindictive campaign succeeded in derailing the progress of one of the few successful countries in Africa. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that Botswana can count on the support of this Government.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, on initiating the debate. Africa gets a terrible press in western countries. It needs some shining light, and, along with Ghana, Senegal and some other countries, Botswana is one of those shining lights. It is in fact a favoured child of the World Bank and the IMF, even though it is one of the few countries in Africa that has never deployed their structural adjustment policies. Some might say that there is no accident there.
	I met the president, Festus Mogae, a few months ago and had some interesting discussions with him. I was very impressed with the rational and sane nature of the policies he outlined. I think that it was a very balanced analysis of the opportunities facing the country, and also the problems that it has. Botswana, as the noble Baroness said, has a small population, but in some ways it is a model of development, economically and politically—economically because it has had a high growth rate for a long time, and politically because it enjoys notable stability, especially against the background of sub-Saharan Africa in general.
	The country could not be said to have a diversified economy. It is heavily dependent on diamond mining—about one-third of GDP and 70 per cent of export earnings come from this source. However, its success is due to the fact that these resources have been very well managed and the country, as a whole, has followed sound macroeconomic policies. Of course, the fact that it has a stable parliamentary system has made a lot of difference. All foreign observers agree that elections have been freely and fairly contested and held on schedule. As the noble Baroness mentioned, it has also pursued sound environmental policies and its game parks are a model for other parts of Africa.
	However, the country has serious problems. Well over 40 per cent of the population still lives below the absolute poverty line, although that proportion has come down from an even higher proportion. In the document to which the noble Baroness alluded, Vision 2016, the Government want to reduce this proportion to 27 per cent in the short term and by 2016 wants the country to be the first African country free of absolute poverty—subsistence poverty. The World Bank, I think rightly, assesses that the country, all other things being equal—and they are not all that equal—has a decent chance of achieving that.
	Secondly, the unemployment rate is still high—more than 20 per cent in some areas. Unfortunately, a good deal of that unemployment is long-term. Thirdly, levels of economic inequality are unacceptably high. Many commentators have focused on that. There is a wealthy elite. A lot of people live in poverty, and the division between them is still much too big. It needs to be bridged.
	Fourthly, of course there is the issue of AIDS. To their credit, the Government have followed a quite different policy from South Africa and have, I think, been successful in providing antiviral drugs to their population. They have had a very enlightened policy in that area, of course with assistance, as has been mentioned.
	The latest statistics show that the country no longer has the world's highest HIV infection rate, but many people still think it remains on the edge of potential disaster. I hope the Minister will comment on this because assessment of the impact of AIDS is quite difficult. There are divergences between different commentators on the actual level of HIV infection and AIDS in the country, and, of course, people who survive with HIV are a measure of success, not just a measure of failure. The issue is more complicated than it might appear at first sight.
	I have quite a few points which I would like the Minister at least to consider commenting on. First, what actually can be done to promote diversification? The Government are, quite rightly, seeking to diversify the economy, but it is difficult. Many people have expressed the view that one of the reasons for the difficulties of diversification is the size of the public sector in the country. Does the Minister share that view? I suspect, however, that it is the policies followed that need some outside assistance and advice.
	Secondly, Botswana is a low risk country in terms of international risk assessment. Moody's Investor Services gave the country an A-plus credit rating recently. However, FDI is not well developed. Thirdly, the country speaks English. Can it make progress in the world of information technology as some poorer countries have done quite effectively? Fourthly, what is the Minister's assessment of the AIDS issue, especially in relation to inequality? There is quite a controversy among students of the country about whether that will have an impact on equality, quite apart from all the other potentially catastrophic effects that it could have.
	The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have, rightly, put Africa at the top of the agenda. They are to be congratulated on that. Of course, they have concentrated, as have the entire Government, on the more problematic areas of Africa, but I hope that the Government and the Minister will recognise that it is just as important to try to help those countries which are becoming successful, because they blaze a path for others in future.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, since independence, the Government of Botswana have made a determined effort to raise education and skill levels and to bring added and diversified value to the economy. Unusually among African states, the Government offer 10 years' free education to all children. Remarkably, enrolment rates in primary and junior secondary schools are close to 100 per cent. Most significantly, girl pupils are believed to outnumber boy pupils at both levels.
	Since independence, as my noble friend Lady Tonge mentioned, adult illiteracy has fallen below 25 per cent. That compares to 40 per cent on average for sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. In 1966, an overwhelmingly rural population depended on agriculture and livestock for a livelihood. At that time, only a minority had access to proper healthcare, safe water and schooling. By the 1990s, infant mortality had fallen to fewer than 50 per 1,000 live births, compared with the average in sub-Saharan Africa of more than 90. Life expectancy had risen from a little over 40 in 1966 to 67 years by 1996. From almost no access to healthcare, about 90 per cent of the rural population now lives close to a primary health post and village water supply schemes cover almost the entire country. That is some success story.
	However, it is an immense tragedy that, during the past decade, many of the achievements in economic, social, educational and health development have been put at risk through the rapid and inexorable spread of HIV/AIDS. Botswana is one of the countries most affected by HIV/AIDS in the world. Average life expectancy, which had risen from 40 to 67 years by the mid-1990s, has now fallen dramatically to only 32 years.
	The enormous direct costs of care and treatment are accompanied by devastating human and social effects, but underlying those effects is a deeper, long-term loss to the economy. In neighbouring South Africa, for example, the HIV/AIDS attrition rate in the labour force in the mineral extractive industries can cause a 100 per cent turnover of employees every four years. There is no reason to believe that Botswana is faring any better. It is more likely that it is faring far worse.
	It is clear that Botswana's continued progress is threatened by the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but there looms another threat to Botswana's economic and social development. The very positive per capita GDP of $US 9,200 masks a large disparity in income distribution. In a country already prone to drought, as has been mentioned, 40 per cent of households in rural areas are believed to be living in poverty.
	We tend to consider global warming in the context of melting ice caps and rising sea levels threatening low-lying island and coastal communities. We should not, however, overlook the potential impact of global warming on Africa, particularly the semi-arid areas of southern Africa. The potential impact of global warming in the region has been the subject of studies at Oxford University, the University of East Anglia and throughout Botswana by specialist consultants. Most worrying is the predicted effect on the Kalahari dune fields, which cover 2.5 million square kilometres from the northern end of South Africa through Angola, Botswana and Namibia to western Zimbabwe and western Zambia. Some computer study models are now predicting that those dune fields, currently stable under vegetation, will start to erode and move as rainfall decreases and wind speeds rise under global warming. If the Kalahari sands start to shift as predicted, tens, or, possibly, hundreds of thousands of already impoverished people in rural communities will be affected.
	Because of Botswana's GDP strength, the United Kingdom and the European Union are now the only substantial providers of development assistance. It is therefore vital that we do not lose sight of threats from global warming because of the immediate HIV/AIDS crisis. We must take a longer view of our development assistance. We must ensure that the policies and programmes that we promote, sponsor and support in Botswana are designed to address the impact from global warming. We must not ignore the threat of existing semi-arid areas turning into deserts well before the end of this century.
	I look forward to hearing my noble friend's response to what I consider to be important and far-reaching concerns.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, when I went up to Balliol 61 years ago, my greatest friend there was Seretse Khama, as my noble friend Lord Jones has reminded me. He used to say that when he became chief he would invite me to stay with him. Some 20 years later, when the CPA proposed to send only two Members—one Labour, one Tory—to the independence celebrations, Seretse personally intervened and insisted that an invitation be extended to me as well.
	He was a great democratic leader of his people, following the ancestral tradition of the kgotla, a public consultation place and process, in which everyone could participate, predating our own ideas of community politics by centuries. Because of his legacy, Botswana is cited as a model for the rest of Africa. We have heard that from several noble Lords today.
	But things are not perfect. One local NGO has said that the government have become insensitive to public opinion and that Parliament is now known for serving the interests of the ruling party and not of the people. The general state of democracy has deteriorated over the past decade, they say, with regard to the rule of law, corruption and general aggression on citizens. So perhaps I may, as a friend of Botswana, offer a few words of advice.
	First, following the noble Lord, Lord St John, I shall deal with the subject of corruption. The recent Botswana Technology Centre scandal and the allegations about the Department of Road Transport and Safety point to the need for the powers and resources of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime to be strengthened, and for declarations of interest to be required from elected members and officials at every level of government. Freedom of information should be enshrined in law, and Botswana should have a timetabled strategy for ratifying the African convention against corruption, joining 11 other African states.
	Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, also mentioned, there is the issue of relations with Zimbabwe. Some 800,000 people fled Zimbabwe for Botswana between 1999 and 2004, but as he said, the Botswana authorities have refouled thousands of them back over the border to the tender mercies of Mugabe, contrary to international law. The Minister said in South Africa last week that a collapse in Zimbabwe would have strong negative neighbourhood effects, with instability spreading across borders, and yet Botswana, like South Africa, treats Zimbabweans as illegal economic migrants and turns a blind eye to the crisis.
	Thirdly, the government must uphold freedom of expression. Last July, Australian Professor Kenneth Good was kicked out of the University of Botswana and expelled for criticising government policies. The Zimbabwean journalist Roderick Mukumbira was given seven days' notice to leave the country for unspecified security reasons. The Committee to Protect Journalists said that his expulsion was linked to his reporting on sensitive subjects such as the eviction of the San people from their ancestral lands in the game reserve. The government have banned educational materials about indigenous people that were distributed to 40 other countries.
	That brings me to the point made by several other noble Lords: the treatment of the San people. Compulsory assimilation is not the answer. All over the world, the result of such policies has been deterioration in the quality of indigenous people's lives, through disease, alcoholism and loss of social cohesion. Clearly, the individual members of these peoples have the same rights as anyone else to the services provided by the state, as my noble friend Lady Tonge has said. If they decide that they want to continue the sustainable way of life that they have followed since time immemorial, however, they should have that right, too.
	The UN has been discussing the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the past 11 years, and a text is at last being submitted for approval to the UN Commission on Human Rights. That would provide an interim yardstick by which the policies of states might be assessed. Article 7 says that indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. It goes on expressly to prohibit the deprivation of their integrity as distinct peoples, their cultural values or ethnic identities, dispossession of their lands and resources, forced population transfer, forced assimilation or integration and propaganda promoting or inciting racial discrimination.
	While I join my noble friend Lady Tonge in sending congratulations to Botswana on the approaching 40th anniversary of its independence, on its impressive economic gains, adherence to the letter of democracy and achievements in education and health, particularly in dealing with the scourge of AIDS, I urge the government of Botswana to root out corruption and to address the problems of the weak and vulnerable, whether they be the San, asylum seekers or dissenters from the conventional wisdom.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I shall go back to the basic research to ascertain the facts for certain—but the figure is big enough.
	Debswana, the diamond mining joint venture between the Government of Botswana and De Beers, is a key player in the national economy, realising about 80 per cent of the country's export earnings, 40 per cent of GDP and 50 per cent of government revenue. This wealth has been distributed to the population through the provision of social services such as education and healthcare and investment in infrastructure.
	There is a significant challenge to the government and the nation, and it is HIV/AIDS, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned. I do not know what the true cost to the economy is, but it is obviously substantial. UNAIDS reports that some 37 per cent of the sexually active adult population are infected. However, in recent months, the Government of Botswana have produced a figure of 17 per cent, based on their own impact survey of the total population, from cradle to grave. What is certain is that there is a massive infection and the government are working hard to bear down on it. Some 90 per cent of the budget for HIV/AIDS is met from the government's own resources, with the donor community making up the 10 per cent balance. Some 58,000 Botswanans receive anti-retroviral treatment completely free of charge. That equates to over half of the 110,000 that UNICEF estimates need such therapy. By 2008, the Botswana Government expect to provide treatment to all Botswanans who require it.
	These figures are unquestionably difficult, by any standards. There are differences between the figures for the sexes: the female incidence rate is 1.7 times the male rate. The programmes required for prevention of mother-to-child transmission are fundamental, which is why the government are providing drugs to 73 per cent of pregnant HIV-positive women. The number of people who underwent routine HIV testing during 2005 increased, too.
	DfID is supporting a £7.65 million regional HIV/AIDS programme through the Southern African Development Community. Key elements of the programme are the social marketing of male and female condoms; prevention activities in high transmission cross-border sites; support for national AIDS councils; and promotion of behaviour change. Noble Lords wanted to know what we are doing, and that is among the things that we are doing. It is certainly true that President Mogae has led a public campaign which is itself of considerable importance and contrasts with some of the other programmes in the region.
	The issues of environment are also important. There is a DfID identification programme which has been established to address Africa-wide issues of desertification. It is true to say that that needs to work with some urgency, given the fragility referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Chidgey and Lord St John, which is plainly to be seen.
	I turn quickly to the issue of the San. The issue of the San of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve attracts a good deal of attention here. The British High Commission in Botswana regularly discusses the San issue with the Government of Botswana and interested parties. In recent years they have made several visits to the Central Kalahari Game Reserve and relocation areas such as the New Kade, the latest being in June 2005. Our High Commissioner to Botswana has raised the issue on several occasions since his arrival in October 2005, and we place it high on our agenda.
	We look to the Government of Botswana to address effectively the social and cultural differences between the different communities. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as this issue came up recently in a Question, that there is no doubt that the Botswana Government, dealing with a country overall the size of France and an area of natural reserve the size of Switzerland, are bound to try to respond to some of the demands of the people of that country for proper levels of education for their children and proper opportunities. Those things may not be desired by every one of the San population, but there is no question but that a great many people want, and aspire to, those things for the future, and for their families. We are following the legal case closely, but we understand those aspirations, and we do not believe or accept that clearing sites in order to mine for diamonds plays any part in these programmes. There is no sound evidence of that whatever.

Viscount Astor: In moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak to a whole draft of amendments that are consequential on it—most of which I do not understand, but I shall speak to the first one.
	In an earlier debate when talking about the Big Lottery Fund, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that it was an apple cart that he did not want to overturn. I think that the apple cart is particularly overloaded and therefore I find it almost irresistible not to try to overturn it—there are sound reasons for doing so. Perhaps I may take Members of the Committee back to the start of the National Lottery.
	Noble Lords will remember that there were originally five bodies—four dealing with the arts, sport, heritage and charities, plus the Millennium Commission. Now we have no Millennium Commission. If we managed to put the lottery back as it was, which I think would be far simpler and easier—I recognise that I may be a rather lone voice in this argument this evening; nevertheless, I intend to press it—that would have a significant effect on the three distributing bodies. For example, under the current estimated funding of good causes, the Big Lottery Fund will get about £690 million a year, heritage will get £230 million, and sports and the arts will receive about the same. Under my amendment, charities would get £345 million and heritage, sports and the arts would also get £345 million. So heritage, sports and the arts would get substantially increased funding, as they do now—more than £100 million more. I think that that would be a good thing. It would put the lottery back to what it was.
	We know that the Government changed the lottery and brought in the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund but that, in effect, they did not work as they should have done. As a result, the Government have come forward with the Big Lottery Fund. We have heard a lot about that. The biggest problem is that, because it is so large, the Government feel that they will have to have additional powers to enable them to prescribe very much what it does and how it acts. If we had the four original distributing bodies, none of that would be necessary. We would not need the debates on additionality. All of that would probably go because each of the four bodies would be narrowly focused and therefore those issues would not exist, which would be for the best.
	I accept that my amendment would entirely change the Government's policy on the lottery and I accept that the Minister will be robust in his defence of the Big Lottery Fund. That is fine, but I cannot let this issue go by without saying that we think that the Government have got it fundamentally wrong. It has enabled all these issues of additionality to come up, which they should not have done, and that has been dangerous for the lottery. On average, there has been a very small rise in the total amount that distributing bodies have been able to give away over the past five or six years. The lottery was brought into disrepute—that might be too harsh a word, but the public were put off certain sections of it. It is only now that turnover is beginning to increase. That was not Camelot's fault; sadly, it was due to the public's perception of how the lottery was being managed. If one part of the distributing bodies does something, it affects all the other parts.
	My amendments would put back the lottery as it was. I know that the Minister will not accept them but I should like him to accept the principle. Perhaps I may turn to one part of that. If the amendments were accepted, charities would receive about £350 million a year because they would get 25 per cent of the funding—more than they have ever had before. The largest amount that they received under the Millennium Commission was 20 per cent. That would be a substantial increase. Can the noble Lord give me a commitment that under the Big Lottery Fund charities will receive an equivalent amount of funding? I shall be interested to hear his reply. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's reply, which was not unexpected. I have two quick points to make. First, I entirely accept what my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville said about there being an opportunity, when the Millennium Commission came to an end, to reconsider the amounts that would go to the distributing bodies. None of the examples that the Minister gave about the awards given out could not be made by the four bodies suggested in my amendment. They could all be made, so it would not be true to say that they could not.
	Another criticism was that this was going back. It is not; it is doing something entirely new—making four bodies, which has never been done before because there was always the Millennium Commission. It would solve most of the problems of additionality and prescription, and it would make life much easier. I recognise that I do not have as much support around the Committee as I would hope. Nevertheless, I think that my amendment is valid, and I wish to test the opinion of your Lordships' House.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the way in which he moved his amendment. I resile from any imputation that the arts, national heritage and sports have no contribution to make to health, education and the environment. Of course they have. All these divisions have an arbitrary quality to them, but he will realise that projects under the Big Lottery Fund do not fit easily or automatically with the other three categories.
	The noble Viscount indicated that it is not just a question of changing the name—there is a feeling that the fund should focus more on the voluntary and community sector, which is why he wants to change the name to the "Charitable Lottery Fund". Well, we just had that discussion, and I indicated why I sought to defend the arrangements that have obtained since the changes in the lottery in 1998 and the creation of the Big Lottery Fund. It was not a civil servant on his way home who dreamt up this concept; the name was suggested by the fund and agreed by the Secretary of State. It was not initiated in the department. It gets across a simple message that this is money from the National Lottery, and that the fund is the biggest of the lottery good-cause organisations. It connects with the public, as I indicated beforehand, with great advantages to the areas for which it is responsible.
	We wanted every possible beneficiary to be aware of the fund's existence and a simple name helps to increase awareness. The name also reflects the aim of reconnecting the public with the National Lottery. We think that it has been advantageous in that regard. It is consumer-oriented, as I think that the noble Viscount would recognise. He might disparage that as a less traditional concept, but it is the people's lottery. Given how much is contributed and how many people are players in the fund, it is proper that we should use popular, easily understood concepts within this framework.
	The fund market tested the name and found that it was popular with all sections of the public. Recent evidence suggests that the recognition of the Big Lottery Fund name is high; it is well known as a source of funding for community projects, an area which our fellow citizens greatly value. I see no reason for changing the name on the grounds of the strong argument, which I also advocated on the previous amendment.
	I am also mindful of the fact that the noble Viscount will recognise one aspect, as he is concerned about the accurate allocation of resources. The greatest wastage of resources is when names are changed, logos are messed about with and organisations seek to rebrand themselves with name changes, to no definable purpose. If we changed the name of the Big Lottery Fund, we would spread confusion, achieve very little and use up hard-won resources.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I heard the Minister's speech and his explanation of how the title "Big" was chosen by the New Opportunities Fund and proposed to the Government. If the argument for calling it "Big" was because it was the biggest, the Minister seems to have played into the hands of the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Eccles. The disadvantage is that it has that central role.
	Opinion polls can be used to prove anything; I heard the figures which the Minister quoted on the previous amendment. I have a recollection—I am perfectly happy to be argued out of it, persuaded or corrected—of a different opinion poll asking people what they thought the money should go to. About a third said that it should go to arts, sport and heritage; a third said it should go on health and education and similar issues; and a third had no opinion at all. I agree that on that basis, the Minister has a degree of argument for the conclusion he has reached, but I do not think it is right to say that the overwhelming majority of people are in favour of what he describes as the "Big" proposition in the way he indicated.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord expressed himself forcefully at Second Reading on these issues, so I have given careful consideration of the arguments that he puts forward. He raises some interesting questions about how the board is intending to work. Let me address a point that is already in the Bill as we have presented it to Parliament—namely, that four out of the 12 board members should represent the interests of part of the United Kingdom. That ensures that, although they are a minority of members, they have an important part to play, because they will chair committees that will oversee devolved expenditure in the four parts of the UK.
	The National Lottery itself is a reserved matter. But the areas covered by the Big Lottery Fund good cause—health, education, the environment and charities—have all been devolved. Decisions about these matters are better made in the light of the particular circumstances in each country. Our policy has been to reflect this in the Bill, and the arrangements that we have made for the committee, which is why we have created the concept of devolved expenditure and provided for the committees to oversee spending, chaired by each of the country's representatives on the board.
	Devolution to the regions of England is of course a different matter. While it is often a good thing for policy reasons, as the noble Lord will recognise, because he knows how much we have enthused about aspects of regional policy in this Government, there is no statutory framework. He might regret that—but there is statutory framework with devolution to the countries of the UK. We are reflecting what is rather than what ought to be or what we might in other circumstances have desired.
	We believe that decisions on how best to ensure that there is an English regional dimension to its work are best made by the Big Lottery Fund itself. It is not for the Government to force a particular model upon the fund. The noble Lord proposed an enlarged committee, on which the regional representatives are there—but he also recognises that we would need expertise beyond that, and his answer is to extend the committee. We have thought seriously about the board's size and we think that there are merits in a board of 12, which is small and focused enough to provide a strategic focus for the work. That is what its job is. Having nine English regional appointees as well as the three national interest appointees would risk creating a larger board, but also a less coherent board.
	I respect the noble Lord's points, but the framework of the board as it is builds on the practice of the New Opportunities Fund, which operated very much at a strategic, national level, and the Community Fund, which had much more of a regional focus. The fund will learn from the experiences of both those bodies. It is against this background that the fund has decided it will not have general English regional committees. English programmes will be national and awarded through partner organisations in the third sector or in co-ordination with local government. However, the Big Lottery Fund will have English regional representation on the national committees for individual funding programmes when this is appropriate. For example, the Reaching Communities programme will have representatives from each of the nine English regions, because that reflects rather more the regional concept of the former Community Fund. That will allow for regional perspectives to be brought into the decision making. As the noble Lord conceded, although I do not think he did so with undue enthusiasm, it is intended that there will be a regional office in each of the English regions whose primary role will be outreach work. The offices will spend time gathering regional intelligence that will be fed into the assessment process, which operates nationally.
	I hope the noble Lord will recognise that we have not ignored the regional element with regard to the structure of the fund, but we think a small focused fund concerned with strategy is right. We think we should fit in with the pattern of the United Kingdom in terms of the devolved administrations, which is why we have the four representatives of the four countries of the UK. I hope, despite his undoubted enthusiasm for the regional perspective, that on reflection he will recognise in the structure that we accept part of his argument, and that he will withdraw his amendment.